Sri Ashok Kumar Bhattacharyya, President
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant’s wife (Diljan Bibi) was admitted in the Nursing Home Nabajeeban (OP no. 3) under Dr. G.S. Keshary (OP no.1) on 29.05.2014 at about 5 PM for her high fever with vomiting, that after test of H.B of the said patient it was found on 30.05.2014 that the percentage of H.b was 3.3 gm/dI, that after giving her 4 unit blood, the percentage of H.b was increased upto 9.2 gm/dI and that the said patient was then come round and released from the Nursing Home on 05.06.2014 after prescribing medicine to the said patient by the OP 1.
On 24.06.2014 she was admitted further to the said Nursing Home for her fever with vomiting under OP1 for treatment. She was further pushed 4 units of blood from 24.06.2014 to 28.06.2014 there. Ultrasonography of her whole abdomen was done on 25.06.2014 as per advice of OP1. The OP1 then advised as per Sonography Report that she should be operated as to her uterus so that she might be normal and the patient was referred to OP2 (Gynecologist). After pushing further 4 units of blood, she was operated by the OP2 on 30.06.2014 without counting platelet of her.
On 04.07.2014, she became senseless after taking rice and medicine. On 05.07.2014 her condition was seriously detoriated. The belly of the patient had a vacant place for cutting her stich after 5 days of operation by the OP2. She was then admitted to SSKM Hospital on 06.07.2014 as per advice of the Nursing Home. It was detected at SSKM Hospital after medical clinical test of the patient that she had attacked with Blood Cancer (A.M.L.). Then she was discharged from SSKM Hospital on 28.07.2014 and referred to N.R.S. Hospital wherefrom she was returned to her home as no bed was vacant at N.R.S. Hospital and on 24.08.2014 she died.
The Complainant further alleged that his wife (patient) lost her everything due to negligence of the opposite parties for treating her without proper care i.e. without testing of PLATELET count before her operation, hence the instant case has been filed by the complainant, husband of the said patient, for compensation and other reliefs.
All the opposite parties appeared and have resisted the consumer case by filing written version separately, where in all the material allegations (including alleged medical negligence) made on the complaint, against them have been denied specifically. The opposite parties have stated in their respective W/V that they provided careful treatment and medical service to the patient. Hence, all the opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the consumer case. The Complainant has not filed any separate written note of argument, but prayed to accept complaint. The Opposite Parties of the instant Consumer Case have filed their photocopies of documents as per their respective list of documents and they have also filed their written notes of arguments.
The Opposite Parties filed their questionnaires against the affidavit in chief of the complainant and the complainant filed written answer.
Points for determination:
- Whether there was any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties for treatment of the patient at the said nursing home as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:
Both the above two points are taken up together for consideration.
After hearing the Ld. Advocates of both sides at length, we have carefully gone through the pleading of the complainant, the written versions of opposite parties, written notes of argument of the opposite parties, evidence and their photocopies documents filed on record.
Undisputedly, the patient, namely Diljan Bibi (wife of Complainant) since deceased, was admitted in the nursing home of the Opposite Party no. 3, under Opposite Party no. 1 on account of her illness (fever with vomiting) on 29/05/14 at about 5 P.M. , that after treatment rendered by the Opposite Party no. 1 to the said patient by pushing 4 units of blood as on observation of her Hb report on 30/05/14, it was found the percentage of her Hb was 3.3 gm/dl and then her Hb % was increased by 9.2 gm/dl. She then came round and was released on 05/06/14 with medical advice by the Opposite Party no. 1. The said patient again took admission to the said nursing home on 24/06/14 with complain of anaemia, fever and weakness, 4 units of blood was pushed to the patient, that as per report of ultra sonography of whole abdomen and the other clinical reports of the patient, the Opposite Party No. 1 referred her to Dr. Opposite Party no. 2 (Gynecologist), who after pushing 4 units of blood to the patient, performed operation of uterus of the patient on 30/06/14, as there was no further improvement; she (patient) was referred to S.S.K.M. Hospital for her better treatment on 06/07/14 after removal of her stitches. It was detected at S.S.K.M. Hospital by medical reports that she was suffering from Acute Myloblastic leucaemia (blood cancer) and discharged from S.S.K.M on 28/07/14.
The photocopy of discharged certificate stood in the name of the patient dated 28/07/14 issued from the S.S.K.M Hospital filed by the complainant along with the petition of complaint, which goes to show that final diagnosis of the said patient was AML and she was referred to N.R.S./ C.M.C. The photocopy of O.P.D Ticket of the said patient of N.R.S. Hospital filed by the complainant on record speaks that she was checked up/ examined by the Doctor of Hematology Department on 28/07/14, and advised for medicine with note to attend again on 11/08/14.
There is no material on record produced by the complainant to show that the patient attended again on 11/08/14 or any other day to O.P.D (N.R.S) Department of Hematology. From the death certificate filed by the complainant on record it appears that the patient died at her home on 24/08/14.
The grievance of the complainant as urged by the Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant that the Opposite Party no. 1 and Opposite Party no. 2 did not take any step for testing of platelet count before operation of the patient and that the stitch of patient was cut by the Opposite Party no. 2 on five days’ operation for which a vacant place was created on her belly.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant further submitted that for such above reasons the complainant sustained loss and injury due to negligence of the Opposite Parties as to rendering medical services to the patient (wife of the Complainant).
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties opposed the argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate for Complainant with submission that there is no specific reason as to allegation for medical negligence against the opposite parties, that there is no document to show that there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the report of medical experts on record has not supported the allegation of medical negligence against the Opposite Parties.
It appears from the remark of blood report dated 05/07/14 of the patient (Diljan Bibi) as referred by the doctor of Opposite Party no. 3 that it might be a case of lymphatic leukaemia and after receiving such blood test report, Opposite Parties suggested to refer the patient to State Medical College (S.S.K.M Hospital) and then referred the said patient to S.S.K.M Hospital after releasing her on 06/07/14 and also after removal of her stitches.
It reveals from the photocopies of discharge certificate of S.S.K.M Hospital that the patient was treated there as an indoor patient from 07/07/2014 to 28/07/2014 and on trial diagnosis of AML (blood cancer) she was referred to N.R.S.M Hospital.
It transpires from the observation and opinion made in the original report dated 16/12/14 of the medical enquiry committee comprising of Prof. Dr. P. S. Chakraborty, Prof. Dr. S. Ghosh and Prof. Dr. D. K. Sarkar attached to IPGMER & S.S.K.M Hospital on record as called for vide order No. 2 dated 31/10/14 passed by the D.C.D.R Forum, Purba Medinipur from medical superintendent cum vice principal at IPGMER S.S.K.M Hospital, Kolkata, that the treating Doctors, Dr. G. S. Keshary (Opposite Party no. 1) and Dr. Sumana (Opposite Party no. 2) had done no medical negligence on their part to the patient.
Apart from that, on careful perusal and consideration of entire documents including treatment sheets (photocopies) and pleadings of the parties, evidence on record and also having regard to the submissions of the Ld. Advocates of both sides, we feel that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties for rendering medical treatment to the patient (Diljan Bibi) as alleged by the complainant and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for.
Therefore, in our considered view, the instant consumer case is liable to be dismissed.
The above two points are, thus, disposed of with the above observations and findings.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the instant consumer case being no. 88/2014 and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties. The Parties will bear their own litigation costs.
